I can see that, if he ends up with a wrapped garage, Ill be incredibly happy. However if there is a surface lot for the townhouse parking, idk it just seems lazy and dumb. I'll still be happy to have a smaller parking lot, just seems like a wasted opportunity. If the townhouses are flushed to the existing and a garage and the rest of the development this block could be awesome.

KCPowercat wrote:I looked at the pending licenses yesterday ...nothing in that report...there was one for the brewery...but that's 316 mcgee

The license I pulled was at the state level. I like to use those because I can filter them to get exactly what I need, then import them directly into my DB. KCMO's report is easier to read, but since it's a PDF it makes for a lot of copying and pasting.

Looks good. I'm not a huge fan of the faux historical roofline, but whatever. Give it 20 years, and people will think it's actually historical, like the BOA building in Westport. I'm just glad that gravel lot will be gone

KCPowercat wrote:the townhouses will have their own attached garage. I agree there shouldn't be a surface lot left on this block if done right.

thanks for pointing out the uberugly townhomes "coming soon" sign. Had not seen that and will change immediately. yes we celebrate diversity and increased density for this area given the ToD nature of our goals....done right of course and comments always welcome.yes the townhomes will have attached garages....facades will be updated and tastefully (hopefully everyone's taste) varied to create some dynamic.

It does impact density....negatively. We want variety in all ways. Singles, families, empty nesters, professionals, creatives, etc. the demand we have here started with young families. Glad to see that in the RM.

And we are not your typical "developers". I do not abide by "highest and best use" the mantra of architects. I believe in best use, period.

Yes, the rest of the block will have higher density as we approach the taller existing structures.